TV Broadcasting

Tuesday, 9 June 2009

There are many contributing factors the overall success of British broadcasting in recent years. Since its early development it has been clouded with threat and danger that could have easily ended it, however it has always overcome, and in this essay I shall discover what British broadcasting serves to us today.

The Broadcasting Act in 1990 was the opening window to broadcaster’s recent success. Freeing up on editorial censorship meant more daring and exciting programmes could be made, and the creation of more channels fired up the competition to cater for audience pleasures and desires. As well as this commercial channels were supplied with more funding, and the BBC also had to outsource 25% of its productions. Overall this freed pressure put on institutions as well as provided fresh opportunities to please audiences and reach new levels of financial success.

The emergence of new technologies is something that has impacted all our lives, from the I pod to viewing television on mobile phones, its proliferation has overwhelmed British culture, and broadcasters have used these technologies to their advantage. Interactivity has allowed audiences to interact with their TV’s in many new ways, and it has also enabled new and better quality types of programming such as reality TV- a huge asset to Channel 4’s current commercial position. When Big Brother was released in 1997 is considered the saviour of the medium of British Broadcasting, as well as Channel 4’s existence. It addressed the desires of the audience and changed the society we live in. Now of course other reality shows equally as successful in terms of cultural and financial impact have been made. Britain’s Got Talent, X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing and more have solidified success for broadcasters in the noughties, primarily due to the use of phone lines for financial gain. These programmes are adored by the majority of the British public and don’t seem to be stopping anytime soon.

John Reith’s ideology of the BBC was “To inform, educate, and entertain” which if you look back on its history it seems to have done. In times of danger programmes such as Eastenders have been groundbreaking and gained popularity and success amongst the nation. The BBC’s License Fee almost serves as a trust between itself and the audience. The fee means there is guaranteed income for the company, and ensures it’s free from commercial pressure. BBC has also had a diverse audience because of this, and accesses many people’s lives through original high quality productions that you may not get from a multi-channel product like Sky. However the multi-channel environment we now live amongst has proved as an asset for the BBC, as they have created their own variety of channels amongst the digital world, such as BBC 2 and 4, both of which exploit the variety the BBC offers.

However even after all this success; I do argue that British Broadcasting is threatened in some form. The Broadcasting Act did indeed unveil new opportunities but experts say this was the “dumbing down” of TV. It is dependent on what we consider to be good programming. Can we really say the BBC offers us quality programming, or in fact any PSB? This in turn questions the purpose of the license fee, and why it should be paid when the digital television world can cater for all audiences both mass and niche. The Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand prank call to Andrew Sachs on BBC Radio 2 in 2008 was one of the most controversial moments in the BBC’s history. Why should we pay for content like this?

As well as this, New Media Technology serves as a major threat. The accessibility of TV now is effortless; Programmes like 24 display 5 minute “Catch-ups” on mobile phones now, and the invention of Sky Plus now means we can pause, rewind and even record our desired programmes, meaning we can form our own schedule for when we want. PSB’s are in serious competition as their broad coverage cannot conform to all audiences, and the availability of free channels once again challenges the relevance of the license fee of the BBC. Digital TV is now in 87% of all UK homes, and with the digital switchover fast approaching; the future for PSB’s is looking especially grim.

Perhaps the biggest of threats to British Broadcasting is the Internet. The Cyber highway now means we can access virtually everything on our computer, including things associated with TV. Statistics state that UK citizens now spend more time on the Internet than they do watching TV, which is very concerning for the institutions of television.

All these threats are hitting television very fast, but it is nothing that it has not overcome before. PSB’s may be at threat, but people will always trust the license fee of the BBC and the quality programming public services offer. The BBC brand itself is a symbol of England and something everyone feels at comfort and respect with. And above all this it is much cheaper than subscribing to a £60 a month deal with Sky or Virgin Media. And although Sky and Digital TV may be becoming more and more popular, it does mean that people still watch television, and that the existence of this iconic medium still serves a purpose. And as well as this TV is keeping up with the rapid technological advancements and now offers exciting new opportunities for audiences to interact with their boxes in an active way. I personally believe the cultural impacts shall truly determine Television’s future. Programmes like Big Brother, Eastenders, and news stories like the 9/11 terrorist attacks bring the nation together, even in the increasingly fragmented society. Culture does reflect our needs and interests, and we do not know what future culture holds for us. All I believe is that the reflection of our society’s values will be displayed through our televisions, which is why it has been successful and will continue to be for years to come.

Friday, 22 May 2009

Any aspect of media is formed by a conjunction between audience and institution. Therefore the British Broadcasting industry finds many ways to give satisfaction to the UK public. Of course we have to consider public service broadcasters, whose original ideologies are primarily for the public's benefit the people of the UK. However in recent years it could be argued that these origninal ideologies have been lost. In this essay i shall debate and conclude how well the British Broadcasting industry serves the public.The BBC, the UK's leading broadcaster, was set up to "inform, educate and entertain" the people of the UK, and its illustrious and successful is evident of this. In the past they have ensured that they show quality programming catering for all audiences including minorities. The fact that it runs purely on a license fee funded by the public and not commercial income could instantly clarify their intentions. in it's history this license fee has been questioned, with minister's to one point demanding quality programming or the withdrawal of the universal fund. Programmes such as Eastenders have helped saved the fee, as well as the BBC's original purpose. However the new millenia has been the thorn in the BBC's side, particularly with the release of Digital TV. It's benefits are endless; we can now watch nearly any programme we want, whenever we want. BSkyB, or more recently Sky+ now mean we can create our own schedules, and even pause, rewind and fast forward live T.V. It questions the purpose of PSB's; why should we pay a license fee when we can subscrbe to a Sky or Virgin package with more choice, more for your money and more freedom? This is also evident with the rest of the public, as viewing figures state in the last month 41.6% of people engaged in "other t.v" compared to BBC1's 20.8%. Because of this, BBC has been recently focusing it's purpose on commercial success. Due to the competetive nature of modern broadcasting BBc have had to fight to ensure viewing figures, and this has unfourtanetly diminished the ideologies of the company. As well as this can we really claim that that the BBC still serves our needs? the Jonothan Ross/Russel Brand prank calls on Radio 2 really do question the quality of the BBC, and the overall need for PSB's.However, in defence of PSB's, there are some, such as Channel 4, that have gone to extreme extents to excite the public. Channel 4 are renowned for contorversial programming and their anarchy nature. The original owner John Issacs claimed he wanted the channel to "be judged for everything". Its had many positive impacts on television, spanning from documentaries to comedies and multi-cultural programming, it's clear that there was something for everyone. Their playful characteristics have been well recieved for young audiences, dating back to prorgrammes like "The Tube" based on youth culture to modern reality T.V shows like Big Brother, which has piorneered the channel's success in the noughties. It has always taken risks, and as well as this it has reflected the present times through its programming. Saturday Live shown in the 80's had a huge affect on the entertainment scene of the time, and through programmes like Brookside it has reflected the divisions in British society. And although controversies such as Minipops in the 80's, and the Big Brother racist incident involving Jade Goody have spurred absolute hatred for the channel, there is no denying it has always guaranteed excitement for the public. Although it can be argued that like the BBC, that Channel 4 in recent years has stopped taking risks in order to focus more on financial success.After close case studies on these two broadcasters, i believe that in the modern era PSB is becoming more and more irrelevant due to the existance of new technologies and the deterioation of the "Global Village" that T.V used to exist as. No longer do we watch T.V as a family, and the competition for financial success suggests PSB's do not really serve much purpose in the modern age. However it has not stopped them trying, and i think that they have always gone to extents to excite the public, whether that be on the specific guidlines of the BBC (to inform, to entertain) or the excitement Channel 4 presents to us. And i do claim that even recent programmes like Big Brother, have served the public's interests as they are so widely recieved. So as a whole, i conclude that PSB's have served the public brilliantly, and have never stopped exciting, suprising and pleasing the people of the UK. However with the digital switchover fast approaching, and money being the object, i do believe that PSB's will eventually become irrelevant to the public.

Wednesday, 6 May 2009

PSB has faced many challenges to succeed in the current UK broadcasting market. Reasons such as existance of new technologies, politicians and the 1990 Broadcasting Act are just a few of the reasons this has happened. PSB's general requirments are to maintain a high standard and wide range of programming, including topics such as education, and current news and affairs. It must also cater for all tastes and minorities. PSB's are meant to be for the people, which may mean too much focus is on customer satisfaction that finanical success. UK television moved during the Thatcher years from programme-led production to advertising-led production. In turn, this means current producers are much less likely to be supported by management if risky ventures do not show quick results in terms of audience members. PSB broadcasting is in doubt if their ratings become the only factor concerning programme success, as it simply diminishes the purpose of PSB's aim for public benefit. Although during the mid 1990's channels like the BBC and 4 have done well in this area, as they have maintained their audience share whilst ITV have been losing them. However in the long term it could jeopardise the original PSB aims.Even dating back to the earlier years PSB's, particularly the BBC have struggled to survive the broadcasting market. When Rupert Murdoch planned to expand commercial television, the government questioned the BBC lisence fee, which was a conerstone of its purpose. Ministers argued that unless the corpration produced programmes that everyone watched, they could not expect universal funding. Eastenders, a serious BBC rival to Coronation Street was what met this challenge, and by rivalling ITV without the assistance of commercial funding it maintained its licence fee. However it was once again questioned due to the Jonathan Ross/Russel Brand incident in 2008, when they made a series of prank calls to Andrew Sachs on Radio 2. Not only does this question the fee but it also questions the way the BBC is run, which makes the scandal hugley damaging, and it may have now seriously undermined the case for the licence fee.We also have to consider the emergence of technologies such as Sky, and Digital programming. Particulary in the noughties, the rise of popularity in Digital TV has been huge, with almost 87.1% of the televised population now having it. The endless variety of channels digital T.V provides means consumers are free to view almost anything they wish, including all minorities, and this does question the purpose of PSB's. Their morales of customer satisfaction are echoed now through digital TV, and a 2009 survey states that 42.6 % of people decide to watch "Other Programming" on their T.V, compared to just 19.4 % for the BBC. Although much popular than any other terrestrial channels its clear Digital TV's proliferation has impacted Public Service Broacasters hugely, and by the time the Digital Switchover happens in 2012, it could be what ends PSB all together.Even through all this however PSB's still seem to maintain their audience figures, as well as their customer satisfaction. So for now we can guarantee its saftey. However the future does not look bright, and with the switchover fast approaching, and the endless minorities and cultures that now represent our country, PSB's may find it hard to follow its principles that orginally made them; and thats customer satisfaction

Monday, 4 May 2009

Deregulation britain has had a huge impact on the amount of "choice" we as an audience get when consuming T.V today. The two regulations the government specifically focused on were editorial and economic regulation, which is basically the content shown on channels, as well as the quantity of channels there can actually be.It could be argued that the deregulation offers more choice, particularly for mass audiences. The intentions of the government was to create more channels, which of course means more programming for people to view. As well as this the BBC has endless accessibility and not just on T.V. BBC Radio supplies 5 major national stations, all having their own specific purposes, ranging from music, current affairs and sports. Furthermore the supply of BBC World Service means its accessible all the time, and its versatility provides plenty of choice for all audiences. It's clear that there is no shortage in quantity for audiences to choose from, and these services are accessible at any point during the day.The increase of competition for financial success has increased the motivational drive of the broadcasters, however as their intentions are purely of commercial interest it does not necessarily mean the quality of the channels improve. It particularly impacts the niche channels, who lack the funds to compete with the wealthier channels, and therefore these are going out of business. In turn this does not please the large percentage of alternative audiences who were dedicated to these smaller channels.I myself do believe the there has been a decrease in quality and taste in these broadcasters because of deregulation. One defining example is the Brand & Ross incident on Radio Two. The prank calls were heard by around 40,000 people, and this is not what these people should have to put up with. The Brand/Ross incident is completley irrelevant and does not interest me at all. The BBC's purpose is to be the broadcaster for the people (hence why we pay for it) and this incident is another example of how the BBC fails to be this any more. I also believe the programming itself is lacking in decency. Soaps like Eastenders, that form themselves on extremist reality situations. Themes such as paedophilia and domestic violence for a faimly viewing programme are completely uneccessary and unsuitable, and something that I personally do not find wrong. Programmes like this almost make a parody of these serious issues.Another now useless entity is channel 5. The Broadcasting Act in 1990 was how this channel was made, and I myself fail to see its purpose. Most of it's programming consists of old films and poor over-dramatic documentaries. It's audience share percentages speak for itself, reaching only 4.6 percent in 2008. It does not supply any choice, it simply broadcasts what other channels already show, so it really has no purpose.Another concerning factor is the 2012 switchover, meaning all terrestrial signals shall be gone and replaced by digital signals only. This means that every owner of a T.V in the country must purchase new technology in order to receive these, and this financially is an issue for poorer people. So again there is less variety for these people when the switchover happens. The final negative impact is advertising. Although BBC do not run adverstisments they are still under pressure to compete against the other big channels, which should not be the case as this undermines what the BBC stand for. Its apparent now that BBC are more interested now in their financial gains rather than the satisfaction of its consumers, and for that reason and the stated above i do believe that a deregulated britain has created less choice for us as an audience

Sunday, 26 April 2009

ResponsibilitiesOfcom's responsibilities are wide-ranging, covering all manner of industries and processes. It has a statutory duty to further the interests of citizens and consumers by promoting competition and protecting consumers from harmful or offensive material. Some of the main areas over which Ofcom presides are licensing, undertaking research, creating codes and policies, addressing complaints and looking into competition. Ofcom has developed a reputation for its tendency to issue a large number of consultations

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

1.6 Sex and NuditySimilar considerations apply. Much great fiction and drama have been concernedwith love and passion which can shock and disturb. Popular entertainment andcomedy have always relied to some extent on sexual innuendo and suggestivebehaviour but gratuitous offence should be avoided.Careful consideration should be given to nudity before the watershed but some nuditymay be justifiable in a non-sexual and relevant context.Representations of sexual intercourse should not occur before the watershed unlessthere is a serious educational purpose. Any portrayal of sexual behaviour must bedefensible in context. If included before the watershed it must be appropriatelylimited and inexplicit.Sex scenes of a more adult nature, which are more graphic and prolonged, should be limited to much later in the schedule.

1.7 ViolenceIt is reasonable for television to reflect "real world violence" but it is clear that the portrayal of violence, whether physical, verbal or psychological, can upset, disturb and offend and can be accused of desensitising viewers, of making them unduly fearful or of encouraging imitation. These arelegitimate public concerns requiring careful consideration whenever violence, real orsimulated, is to be shown. The treatment of violence must always be appropriate tothe context, scheduling, channel and audience expectations.

1.8 Respect for Human Dignity and Treatment of MinoritiesViewers have a right to expect that licensed services will reflect their responsibility topreserve human dignity, as far as possible, in respect of both individuals (see Sectionand individuals as members of groups. Individuals should not be exploitedneedlessly or caused unnecessary distress, nor should the audience be made to feelmere voyeurs of others’ distress.In particular, consideration should be given to the treatment of vulnerable minorities, bearing in mind the likely effects of both misrepresentation and under-representation.

1.9 HypnotismCare needs to be taken to minimise the risk of hypnosis being induced in susceptibleviewers. In particular, the hypnotist must not be shown performing straight to camera.Licensees should refer to the Hypnotism Act 1952 (Appendix 4).1.10 The Occult and ‘Psychic’ PracticesActual demonstrations of exorcisms and occult practices such as those involvingsupposed contact with spirits or the dead, are not acceptable in factual programmingexcept in the context of a legitimate investigation. They should not, in any case, beshown before the watershed.Horoscopes, palmistry and similar ‘psychic’ practices are only acceptable where theyare presented as entertainment or are the subject of legitimate investigation. Theyshould not include specific advice to particular contributors or viewers about health or medical matters or about personal finance. They should not be included at times whenlarge numbers of children are expected to be watching.Fiction programmes containing ‘psychic’ phenomena should not normally bescheduled before the watershed, although a fantasy setting, for example, may justifysuch scheduling.

1.11 Recorded ProgrammesProgrammes not used immediately should be checked before transmission to ensurethat any content is not rendered tasteless or offensive by intervening events, such asdeath, injury or other misfortune.

1.12 Images of Very Brief Duration1.12(i) General requirementsSection 6(1)(e) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 requires that the ITC do all it can to securethat 'programmes do not include any technical device which, by using images of verybrief duration or by any other means, exploits the possibility of conveying a message to,or otherwise influencing the minds of, persons watching the programmes without theirbeing aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred'.

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

I have considered your feelings regarding the "Padeogeddon" documentary, and would like to take this time to apoligise to you and any others who may have found it offensive in anyway whatsoever.On the contrary, this parody-style documentary was not intended to offend in anyway, and its purpose was to actually mock the media, and not paedophelia itself. the people responsible for creating the programme have covered many serious issues, (i.e drugs) and their aim is to state how the media seem to take issues and expose them in as much light as possible. Take the Joseph Fritzel case; its maximum media coverage almost suggests its a positive subject, and i would like to ask you if something so serious and wrong should be so advertised. If anything, it should be swept under the carpet.As well as this, i emphasise that OFCOM technically has no rules to suggest such a programme is not suitable for television. As odd as this sounds it breaks no rules; it was aired after 9pm and has suitable language and content that as a visual experience should not offend.I completly understand your concerns and have taken them seriously, and i again apoligise for any offence caused, and i shall take it upon myself to see if i can rule out any future broadcasting of these innappropriate programmes.